The following Dave Scot quote from yesterday got me thinking about just how hilarious our friend David Springer can be:

Quote

Whatís out of line is that 60% of academic scientists self-identify as non-religious. They like to think they are irreligious because theyíre smarter than everyone else. The truth is that theyíre more dysfunctional than everyone else and have to live in a sheltered little world where they all think alike, act alike, and pat each other on the back constantly about how very smart they are.

This got me thinking of how many fantastic little bon mots Dave has so carelessly tossed off over the years. While it's invaluable that so many of †these have been immortalized in the ATBC UD thread, I feel like Dave is such a phenomenon that he might deserve a venue where he be appreciated just for his own unique tardhood, not as just a cog in the UD machine.

So I envision this as a venue for some of Dave's most deathless comments, so that all of us, including Dave, can rest assured they can be savored well into the future. I don't envision this as a depository of him merely saying dumb but ultimately boring things about science -- I envision this as a place where his most jaw-droppingly STOOPID quotes can live, or also the quotes where Dave lets his freak flag fly and reveals what a cranky, egomaniacal, insecure, misanthropic, uneducated, gullible wannabe tyrant he is deep down.

The problem, tho: there's too much material to work with. In order to see how feasible this is, I went to page one of the ATBC UD thread. It was a gruelingly slow process, but I did get up to page 13. I figure the best nuggets I culled out of those pages could get the ball rolling.

So now, without any further ado, I give you:

The Best of David Springer!

Quote

Then thereís a really good point about scientists not being the ones to define what is and isnít science. It should be philosophers of science doing the defining. That caught me off guard too. Dembski has a PhD in the philosophy of science, interestingly enough. So WTF are scientists doing telling him what is and isnít science? Thatís like foxes telling farmers how to build chicken coops, isnít it?

Quote

It has come to my attention that some of our best informed ID supporters donít believe politics are important to winning and that science education is the key. Now I dearly love science but without politics providing us a level playing field our arguments from math and science are doomed to being censored.

Quote

I think youíre conflating macro-evolution with Darwinian evolution. The evidence in support of descent with modification from a universal common ancestor over the course of billions of years is compelling. Logically arguable but practically undeniable. If you argue against that you get laughed at and Iíll be hard pressed to suppress a chuckle myself.

Quote

I donít like to be so blunt but if the ID movement doesnít get its head & tail wired together and accept as settled science that evolution happened, that only the mechanism of random mutation as the sole source of variation is in dispute, then its doomed to the dustbin of history. A million scientists arenít entirely wrong. They got a lot of the story right. Their only error is foisting a notion that evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. Thatís purely a dogmatic concoction driven by an atheistic worldview and in denial of some very compelling evidence to the contrary - namely the patterns in the machinery of life which defy explanation by any plausible unintelligent self-assembly mechanism.

Quote

I believe in a chain of command and unquestioning loyalty to it. One follows the orders of those higher in the chain and gives orders to those lower in it. Mission objectives are given, rules of engagement are defined, then mission leaders take the initiative to get the job done. Bill offered me the job of blog czar and I accepted. I then received my marching orders and got on with it. Czar is hardly suggestive of democracy or gentle persuasion. If he wanted a czar thatís what he got. If not then Iím the wrong person for this position.

Quote

This mindset of salvaging pet theories with ad hoc kludges to explain failed predictions is what propped Darwin up for so long. I see itís not just biology that is plagued by this. Us engineers are a different breed I guess. Lives can be lost when weíre wrong so we canít afford to let our egos get in the way of acknowledging failures.

Quote

Where thereís just plain no denying that people are being attacked instead of ideas is when the idea is ID and the attackers are ďscientistsĒ. Not only is the idea of ID not being judged apart from those holding it, the primary argument against it seems to be pointing out that the majority of its proponents are evangelical Christians, like that in and of itself makes ID unscientific. What rubbish! That is not the scientific way. Any scientist worth his salt who attacks ID based on the personal religious beliefs of a majority of those who hold it should be ashamed of themselves. And the ones cheering about courts censoring it on establishment clause grounds are downright despicable. These are no scientists but rather people with an anti-religion agenda who wonít let facts get in the way of their agenda.

Quote

After discovering some of things that **** likes to do in his spare time I can see why he needs to convince himself thereís no God.I think thatís the case for a lot of atheists, although I donít suspect they all have quite such a long list of things theyíd rather not have to explain to St. Peter at the Pearly Gates with their angelic mother listening.Iím not sure if Iím going to have to explain my actions in this life when I get to the other side but itís usually better to be safe than sorry.

and, the classic:

Quote

Itís simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor.

Please feel free to toss in your personal favorites.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. † † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

A big mistake in NDT inspired ideology is that the earthís changing environment gradually molded life to fit it. Thatís bass ackwards. Life molded the environment, paved the way so to speak, for the next predetermined phase of phylogenesis. Thatís why the process took billions of years. It isnít quick or easy laying down foundations that span an entire planetary surface. The atmosphere needed to be oxygenated. The time of great upheavals and catastrophy in a young solar system had to be waited out. Fossil fuel reserves had to be laid down to power an upcoming industrial species. My contention is that industry didnít arise because a power source was available for it but rather a power source was made available so that industry could arise. The way was prepared in advance. It was planned that way.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Took me a while to track down this manifesto of DT's spiritual beliefs:

Quote

Thatís a really good reason for not closing the door on theistic belief. This however raises a further problem in which particular flavor of theism is the right one. Who am I to decide that a billion Buddhists or Hindus might not be the ones who have it right? In my personal life however Iím inclined to take up Pascalís Wager. If atheists are right and you arenít an atheist nothing much is lost. If theists are right and youíre an atheist there might be hell to pay. The smart money picks a theistic belief thatís suitable to his personal tastes and at least goes through the motions just in case. I chose non-denominational Protestantism. It makes a great working basis for civil and productive society, the overhead is minimal (ask to be saved and you are saved), I was saved as a child so thereís nothing more that needs doing (once saved always saved), itís a common religion where I live so its easy to fit in, and so thereís really no downside unless some other religion is right but I donít have enough evidence to make that determination. Pascalís Wager to the letter.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

It just ocurred to me that according to Ernst Mayr I must be a different species from Inuits. Weíre reproductively isolated by geography and there isnít a snowballís chance in south central Texas Iíd be attracted to an Inuit woman anyhow even though weíre probably still physically compatible on a hypothetical basis sort of like brown bears and polar bears.

[edit] Be sure to include linkies.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Took me a while to track down this manifesto of DT's spiritual beliefs:

Quote

Thatís a really good reason for not closing the door on theistic belief. This however raises a further problem in which particular flavor of theism is the right one. Who am I to decide that a billion Buddhists or Hindus might not be the ones who have it right? In my personal life however Iím inclined to take up Pascalís Wager. If atheists are right and you arenít an atheist nothing much is lost. If theists are right and youíre an atheist there might be hell to pay. The smart money picks a theistic belief thatís suitable to his personal tastes and at least goes through the motions just in case. I chose non-denominational Protestantism. It makes a great working basis for civil and productive society, the overhead is minimal (ask to be saved and you are saved), I was saved as a child so thereís nothing more that needs doing (once saved always saved), itís a common religion where I live so its easy to fit in, and so thereís really no downside unless some other religion is right but I donít have enough evidence to make that determination. Pascalís Wager to the letter.

Isn't "non-denominational Protestantism" all but identical with fundagelical?

This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know weíd win. Itís about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pigís ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves.

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bushís circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the ďSantorum LanguageĒ that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isnít going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This wonít be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

Politically biased decisions from ostensibly apolitical courts are a double edged sword that cuts both ways. The liberals had their turn at bat. This is our time now. We won back congress in 1996. We won back the White House in 2000. We won back the courts in 2005. Now we can start undoing all the damage that was done by the flower children. The courts have been the last bastion of liberal power for 5 years. It was just a matter of time. The adults are firmly back in charge. The few wilted flower children that refused to grow up will have to satisfy themselves by following the likes of Cindy Sheehan around ineffectually whining about this, that, and the other thing. Theyíve been marginalized.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn't get the issue framed around science it's going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I'd ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don't have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I'm going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It's simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor. What we are fighting is the idea that the modification was unguided. ID can fight that without ever leaving the battleground of plain scientific conclusions. If we try to argue against anything else we're are (sic) going to lose. Plain and simple. No buts about it. There's only one gaping vulnerability in the commonly accepted evolutionary narrative we can exploit successfully and that's the bit about it being unplanned.

(No link, because this was disappeared by the Big Head.)

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Dave will always be the Praying Marines vs the ACLU in my heart. †It will always bring a smile to my face to recall when the computer genius with an IQ of 150 fell for an Urban Myth and stood up on his soap box and shared it with his closest friends (UDers) †and enemies (Hey - that's us!) †

His denial of error was good, and his attempt to rationalize was even better. †Dave - No matter what happens, we'll always share that special ACLU vs. The Praying Marines moment!

Yes, Janie and Corporal Kate were special, but as Dave would no doubt agree, this one is even more specialer.

Tied with Janie and Corporal Kate, was Richard's TREMENDOUS, AWARD WINNING NEVER TO BE TOPPED EVAR POST # 1,000, where Richard did DaveScot better than DaveScot does DaveScot. †

He was so good I thought he was going to ban us all from ATBC!

I think Richard's Channelling DaveScot Posts belong here.

edited: The link to Praying Marines added in edit from Richard's earlier post.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

I will remind everyone again - please frame your arguments around science. If the ID movement doesn't get the issue framed around science it's going down and I do not like losing. The plain conclusion of scientific evidence supports descent with modification from a common ancestor. You are certainly welcome to have other opinions based on faith in something other than science but I'd ask that you go to a religious website with them if you must talk about it.

You certainly don't have to agree here with descent with modification from a common ancestor but I'm going to start clamping down on anyone positively arguing against it. It's simply counter-productive to our goals and reinforces the idea that ID is religion because nothing but religion argues against descent with modification from a common ancestor. What we are fighting is the idea that the modification was unguided. ID can fight that without ever leaving the battleground of plain scientific conclusions. If we try to argue against anything else we're are (sic) going to lose. Plain and simple. No buts about it. There's only one gaping vulnerability in the commonly accepted evolutionary narrative we can exploit successfully and that's the bit about it being unplanned.

(No link, because this was disappeared by the Big Head.)

It's funny to imagine him saying this now to the current crop of UD denizens.

Not to be overlooked in the praying marine post is DaveTard's theory of what prompts religious belief:

Quote

...The lightning hit a power line near the house, travelled into the garage and to the vehicle through the cord on a trouble light, and knocked the crap out of both of us as we were in contact with the vehicle. It might have made him a bit more religious all of a sudden as he had both hands on bare metal whereas I was just touching a painted surface with one hand.

I've always wondered: Where was his other hand?

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Not to be overlooked in the praying marine post is DaveTard's theory of what prompts religious belief:

Quote

...The lightning hit a power line near the house, travelled into the garage and to the vehicle through the cord on a trouble light, and knocked the crap out of both of us as we were in contact with the vehicle. It might have made him a bit more religious all of a sudden as he had both hands on bare metal whereas I was just touching a painted surface with one hand.

I've always wondered: Where was his other hand?

re:: Dave's Other Hand -

I was going to link to Half Moon's excellent graphics, but the Discovery Banner Has Vanished! It's another Friggin Miracle!

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

No long extinct species whose only evidence of ever existing is imprints left in rocks can be discussed in a genetic context because all the DNA of these creatures, if they even had DNA in them, has been destroyed. Thereís no way to test whether or not dinosaurs even utilized DNA. In effect stipulation 1 says only experimental science can be discussed and that pretty much only leaves room for that which can tested on living tissue. This not to mention the limitations placed on physics teachers who wonít be able to mention anything from theoretical physics. In the meantime, it isnít hard to say ID is testable in principle by demonstrating in a laboratory that a flagellum can evolve without intelligent input. This could SO backfire in the anti-religion zealots facesÖ

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

No long extinct species whose only evidence of ever existing is imprints left in rocks can be discussed in a genetic context because all the DNA of these creatures, if they even had DNA in them, has been destroyed. Thereís no way to test whether or not dinosaurs even utilized DNA. In effect stipulation 1 says only experimental science can be discussed and that pretty much only leaves room for that which can tested on living tissue. This not to mention the limitations placed on physics teachers who wonít be able to mention anything from theoretical physics. In the meantime, it isnít hard to say ID is testable in principle by demonstrating in a laboratory that a flagellum can evolve without intelligent input. This could SO backfire in the anti-religion zealots facesÖ

Your link should go in The Best Of Billy Dembski's file - I forgot about this, but thanks to your link, we now remember that Wisconsin is Evolutions Waterloo!

I don't want to have to go and dig up the pathetic level of detail necessary to determine how many Waterloo's †this makes for evolution, but I am sure some starving grad student somewhere will be willing to do the research.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Re Carlsonjok's citation of Dave's pre-Dover praise of Judge Jones, here is DT's post-Dover description of the good judge.

Quote

Putz does have a better sound to it. No argument there. Absent a more complete single word descriptor I guess itíll have to do. Dickweed would be more hip. Beavis and Butthead really popularized it.

I can see that this game is going to be very addictive. Damn you, J-Dog!

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. † † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

I love how DT gets all sciency with his physician (single experiment, no controls = proof positive. All Science So Far!), appears to believe that hyperproteinemia is a good thing, and endorses a dietary product that has "some enzymes" which he apparently believes will survive digestion in the stomach and get to the right place to "accelerate fat burning".

Quote

I asked my wife yesterday to make enough space around the universal gym so I could start weightlifting and she did. There was several years of worth of stuff piled up around it. I need to go stock up on my favorite body-building supplement Myoplex Deluxe. I might have a week's worth left from my last workout jag. It ain't cheap but it gets muscle building/repair protein circulating in your bloodstream like all get out. If you don't lift to the point of wanting to lay down and cry because it hurts so much you aren't doing it right. The pain is from torn muscle tissue which then repairs itself and adds even more muscle in a bid to prevent further injury in the future. The Myoplex protein boost was unintentionally confirmed by my doctor. I had a physical in 2000, was working out at the time, and drinking Myoplex after each workout. When my blood test came back the doctor said everything was normal except for elevated blood protein. I asked "What causes that?" and he said "Well, that's just it. Except for certain drugs which you don't take I don't know what causes it." I then explained the workouts and body building drinks but he was dubious and asked me to stop for a few days and retake the blood test. I did and this time blood protein was normal. So it really does work. It also has some enzymes in it that supposedly accelerates fat burning while promoting muscle growth. Interestingly, as I was reading the list of ingredients right now from the link above it includes a brown rice extract (brown rice has been my staple food since starting the diet). It says that the carbs in brown rice are metabolized slowly over 2-3 hours and help to curb hunger moreso than other types of carbs. So unbeknownst to me there was something besides the green tea that's been working as an apetite suppressant. I guess it's true you learn something new every day!

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. † † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

Thereís plenty of people who think that teaching evolution absent any criticism or alternative beliefs is the state disfavoring certain religions. I was pretty sure the constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. Whereís the justice for all those folks?

It shouldnít take a botanist to understand how that works but still Ed just didnít get it. Evolution is all important to the Texas grapefruit industry says he. I didnít bother pointing out that grapefruit were purposely hybridized in the Barbados a hundred years before Darwin was born. It wouldnít have made any difference.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

As some of you may recall I wrote that I was experimenting with laboratory propagation of volvariella volvacea (Chinese Straw Mushrooms). Recently, among several other lines of R&D, I was experimenting with hydrogels as a nutrient media. So far Iíve been using them as an agar replacement with mixed results. ....

I wonder what kind of religious beliefs the shooter held? I tried to find out and didn't come up with much other than he had the words "ISMAIL AX" written on his arm and he signed his mass murder manifesto with it. The blogosphere is going nuts trying to figure out what it means.

I'm willing to bet long odds he wasn't a member of any mainstream Christian church, that's for sure. Islam wouldn't be surprising as mass murder of anonymous strangers including women and children in innocent public settings to make a political point seems to be de rigueur for them. There's also some speculation it's tied to an Asian gang.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. † † † † † † † † † † † † - Pattiann Rogers

Busily looks for Tard's claims about being built like a middle-weight boxer or a lineabacker....

Ask and ye shall receive:

Quote

Iím an extrememesomorph. Weíre the ones who can pile on or take off bulk with littleeffort - our bodies are like putty we can sculpt quickly and easily. Yourecognize us by our V shape. My hips are 13 inches wide and my shouldersare 21. Even when I let myself go to a new record high of 240 recently mychest and shoulders were still much wider than my waist and hips. I dropped40 in three months no sweat. Iím considering how far down to go. 160 wasmy Marine Corps weight and my aging joints will appreciate that but I likehow I look more between 180 and 200. Either way itís another 3 months offocused but not very intense effort. I need to add 10 pounds of lean musclemass (which just means eating lots of protein and working out with as muchheavy weight as I can tolerate 20 minutes a day) for the higher weight andactually lose muscle mass for the lower weight. I hate the thought ofsacrificing any lean muscle mass as itís a lot easier to lose than to regainand the older you are the harder it gets.

And yes, biology IS something that can be picked up in spare time depending on how much time we're talking about and how fast the person can learn. I have certified IQ somewhere north of 150. If you're much under that you really can't even comprehend how fast people at my level can think. For instance I got a 4.0 in marine biology in college by devoting ONE DAY to studying the material. I've read every issue of SciAm cover to cover for two decades in my spare time. But am I a biologist? Nope. I made my bones designing PC hardware and software where my talent at logic could be exercised to the fullest. Now that I'm financially independent and free to pursue any area of interest I want, and the 2004 election is over, I'm interested in this evolution brouhaha as it encompasses a number of my favorite subjects including politics. I spent a hundred hours or so in the past few weeks boning up on things missed in 250 issues of SciAm related to evolution. It's mostly a review though, not a learning experience. For instance I knew that DNA codons in both nuclear and mitochondrial forms didn't always code for the same amino acid out of 20 possibilities but I'd forgotten it until I visited the NIH repository where the standard coding table and exceptions are kept.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Here's my favorite. Unfortunately, I have to quote my quote of it, as you'll see in a bit.

Here's what I attributed to DT:

Quote

15Unless Iím mistaken mtDNA is a circular molecule (like bacterial DNA) while nuclear DNA is a double helix. It seems the most likely explanation would be that a cell with a nucleus containing double helix DNA incorporated a separate cell with circular DNA. Symbiotic relationships abound. This is just one more example.

Unless Iím mistaken mtDNA is a circular molecule (like bacterial DNA) while nuclear DNA is open ended. It seems the most likely explanation would be that a cell with a nucleus containing open ended DNA incorporated a separate cell with circular DNA. Symbiotic relationships abound. This is just one more example.

Iím guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds

DS tried to cover his many errors in subequent exchanges by displaying his knowledge of black body radiation and explaining how we measure the temperature of individual photons etc. Discussion around here started just before this post by ss on page 39 and continued for a while after.

You people are obviously not naturalists. I suggest you pipe down and listen. Iíve raised many different species of birds and mammals as pets. Let me assure you in no uncertain terms they most assuredly can learn quite a few things, they have different personalities from one to another individual, they most definitely know pain and pleasure, work and play, and if you look into their eyes youíll see part of yourself in them - if youíve got the gift. Maybe God doesnít give the gift to everyone.

Or maybe God tends to forget birthdays, just like me. Spoken like an agnostic. Also, don't forget the reissue (dance single) of that big hit, "Gravity Parties Hardest":

Quote

Curiously, in some ways gravity is also the strongest force in the universe. It always adds, never subtracts, and can build up until it overwhelms all other forces.-Physicist John G. Cramer

That's from a real physicist not an anonymous pretender. Too bad. So sad.

Laughed so hard I cried, I admit.

Quote

That's all you get from Super Dave today kiddies. I'm going to go back over to UD (pagerank 6/10 on google, by the way :-p ) where even my most playful utterings are taken seriously and propagated far & wide. It must be very frustrating for y'all knowing that, eh? LOL

When I read that one, I briefly considered that he was capable of serious irony directed at himself, with a playful wink to we "Darwinists," while the UDudes took it seriously. Yes, I briefly gave him that credit.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Dave may not know about philosophy, but he knows what he doesn't like:

†

Quote

Let me know when you have some way of measuring mind apart from brain and you can argue with me about it. In the meantime mind/brain duality strikes me as wool gathering so you arenít going to persuade me of anything no matter how hard you try.

--DaveScot

Dave stands up for the persecuted and respects his elders (and even works in the phrases 'Sternberged' and 'Darwinian priesthood' while he's at it):

†

Quote

As far as Davison goes sometimes you have to take the bad with the good. Heís a brilliant experimental biologist with 50 years experience at it. He was Sternberged 20 years ago by the Darwinian priesthood for heresy and has good reason to be hateful about it. What theyíve done and continue to do to him is despicable. You get back what you give out. If nothing else show some respect for your elders and cut them some slack.

Comment by DaveScot ó February 13, 2006 @ 10:31 am

But sometimes you need tough love: [to Davison]

†

Quote

No one hijacked any of my threads. I deleted your comment because it was lewd. Youíve been warned over and over that I wonít tolerate lewdness here yet you persist. Thatís too bad. Iíve no choice at this point but to exclude you from further participation here. -ds

February 19, 2006 @ 9:26 am

Dave is just years ahead a them pointy-headed scientists:

†

Quote

Good grief, Myers. This is a prime example why biologists arenít qualified to recognize design. What you think youíre just discovering is something I recognized decades ago. The flagellum for example isnít the sum of its proteins. While each individual protein is complex in its own right, the assembly instructions are the real specified complexity. Design engineers recognize that immediately and itís taken you what, 20 years to begin catching on?

Dave doesn't like scientists at all, he doesn't like people in general much better, but he's cool with animals:

†

Quote

What exactly is the appearance of a soul and what makes you think a chimp is lacking in that department? Not that I disagree I just want to know how you arrive at these conclusions. As far as Iím concerned there are a lot of humans that have no soul. None whatsoever. Zilch. As cruel and heartless as any animal. Worse, because the human ostensibly has the capacity to know right from wrong. What other animals besides humans get any joy out of causing pain to other creatures? As far as animals resembling people in the soul category elephants might have us beat which I blogged about here. -ds

February 21, 2006 @ 5:31 pm

Speaking in the third person, Dave explains why sending xmas letters to Michael Dell means he must be right about ID:

†

Quote

He's written on Dembski's site that he was on the patent committee at Dell, a select group of a dozen top engineers, and reviewed something like 1000 patent abstracts submitted by employees for worthiness. †I bet he was a real sweetheart to deal with. †He seems to have made a career out of being a jerk but in all fairness he's been on the right side of every fight and how many of us have managed to get rich before we got gray hair working as engineers or scientists?

Yeah, Dave hates him some scientists:

Quote

Scientists are a tiny part of the population. They have failed miserably to convince a significant number of people that the NeoDarwinian story is true. The only thing left propping it up is that it enjoys legally enforced exclusivity in public schools. Judicial fiat is the only thing maintaining its exclusivity. If you think itís so robust why not let it be taught? Surely no one will believe anything else. What are you so afraid of? -ds

It could take thousands and millions of years. †Yes. †It could also take forever plus one day. †It could also happen in the first generation. †The point is that NeoDarwinian theory makes no prediction about how many generations it should take. †A theory that makes no verifiable or falsifiable predictions about macroevolutionary events isn't much of a theory. †It's a just-so story about unpredictable, unrepeatable, unwitnessed events in the distant past. †Why can't you accept that?

This is too easy.

ID has nothing to do with religion, and obviously not right wing politics, either:

Quote

Failing?

Dover is one small battle in one tiny corner of the country. <yawn> Wake me up when SCOTUS makes a ruling.

So I guess you don't want to bet on your so-called knowledge that I haven't taken any biology classes beyond high school. †That's the first smart thing I've seen from you.

Dave levels with us for a second, then goes back to babbling:

Quote

Whether ID is good science or not makes no difference. †Nothing in the constitution says you can't teach bad science. †A theory that supposes certain patterns in nature cannot be adequately explained without intelligent agency of some sort is not religion. †Religions have scriptures, places of worship, clerics, moral codes, and a whole host of things that ID doesn't have. †It isn't religion. †That's a canard.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

You wouldnít be wondering if youíd had a number of other menís wives yelling at you in the height of passion ďI want to have your baby!Ē. Itís a little disconcerting at first but you get used to it. Itís a dirty job but someone has to do it. Some guys prefer to make the worldís children smarter by becoming teachers and some guys prefer to make them smarter through better genetics. Itís all good.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G